Kelly v. Schafer
| Decision Date | 28 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-13081 |
| Parties | MICHAEL A. KELLY, Plaintiff, v. DEBRA SCHAFER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Michael Kelly initiated this case against Defendant Debra Schafer on August 11, 2014. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Kelly alleges that Schafer has deprived him of a constitutionally protected right to participate in the Support Services for Veteran Families case management program administered by Schafer's organization, Mid Michigan Community Action Agency ("MMCAA"). See Am. Compl., ECF No. 7. Schafer has moved to dismiss Kelly's complaint for failing to state a claim against her. See Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 30. Schafer argues that the decision to end Kelly's participation in the MMCAA case management program was made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, not by Schafer. Id.
The procedural history of this case is complex and bears explanation before addressing the, admittedly, limited substantive facts. Kelly first filed this case in August of 2014. See Compl., ECF No. 1. That same day, Kelly filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See App. Proceed IFP, ECF No. 2. Along with these two documents (and a document requesting theappointment of counsel), Kelly filed a motion to serve Schafer immediately via facsimile. See Pl.'s Mot. Serve Def., ECF No. 4. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris for consideration of all pretrial matters. See Order Ref., ECF No. 5. Judge Morris granted Kelly's application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Order Granting App., ECF No. 6.
Because Kelly was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis his complaint was subjected to the IFP screening procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under this procedure, a court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint before service of process if "the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. Judge Morris conducted an initial screening of Kelly's complaint and determined that Kelly's complaint did not state a claim for relief. See First Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 8. The Report, however, was issued after Kelly had amended his complaint as of right, altering the allegations made therein. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 7. The Report was rejected because it did not address the amended complaint. See December 29, 2014 Order Sust. Objs., ECF No. 21.
During the time that Judge Morris' first report was pending, Kelly persisted in attempts to serve Schafer. This included filing another motion for the Marshal Service to serve Schafer, see Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 11, and a request to waive service of summons, see Pl.'s Notice, ECF No. 13. On December 3, 2014, attorney David Wallace made an appearance in the case on behalf of Defendant Schafer and filed a waiver of service on her behalf. See Att'y Appear., ECF No. 14; Waiver of Service, ECF No. 15. Three weeks later, Schafer filed a certificate of service. See Certificate of Service, ECF No. 20. The Report was rejected seven days later. See December 29, 2014 Order Sust. Objs., ECF No. 21. The day after the Report was rejected, on December 20, 2014, Schafer filed an answer to Kelly's complaint. See Answer, ECF No. 22.
The case returned to Judge Morris for general case management. Judge Morris then issued another Report addressing Kelly's amended complaint. See Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 23. Judge Morris concluded that Kelly's amended complaint did not state a claim for relief because Schafer did not make the decision to terminate him from the MMCAA case management program. That decision was made by the VA. Judge Morris construed Kelly's claim as a due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but noted that there was no evidence that Schafer caused a deprivation of Kelly's rights as required to sustain a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action. See Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533 (6th Cir. 2006) (). Judge Morris recommended dismissing Kelly's complaint. See Rep. & Rec. 5, ECF No. 23.
Six days later, Kelly filed a "motion for reconsideration" properly considered as objections to Judge Morris' Report. See Pl.'s Mot. Recons., ECF No. 25. Kelly made eight objections to the Report. His objections are as follows: (1) Judge Morris improperly applied the 28 U.S.C. § 1915 screening procedure by ignoring the definition of homelessness; (2) that Schafer is not a governmental employee so does not benefit from immunity; (3) that the Report ignored Supreme Court case law governing his case; (4) that the Report ignored important facts from his complaint; (5) that despite Schafer's representations in the letter terminating his participating in SSVF, she indeed terminated him from the program; (6) that Schafer did have decision-making authority with respect to Kelly's participation in the case management program; (7) that Schafer violated his due process rights under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), a point unaddressed by the Report; and (8) that his complaint is not frivolous or malicious, nor is Schafer immune from suit. See id. at 2-4.
Kelly also filed a motion to amend his First Amended Complaint to clarify that he is suing Schafer in her individual and official capacities. See Pl.'s Mot. Leave Am., ECF No. 26. Schafer filed a response to Kelly's motion to amend. See Def.'s Resp., ECF No. 27. Schafer argued that allowing Kelly's amendment would be futile and then copied, almost verbatim, the analysis from Judge Morris' Report.
Nearly four months later, Schafer filed a motion to dismiss Kelly's complaint. See Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 30. In the motion, Schafer argues that Kelly's complaint should be dismissed for all of the reasons stated in Judge Morris' Report, once more copying almost verbatim from the report and adding no new legal analysis. Kelly responded to Schafer's motion on May 15, 2015. See Pl.'s Resp., ECF No. 31. In his response Kelly repeated claims he has already made concerning his entitlement to participate in the SSVF case management program.
Judge Morris' second Report, Kelly's objections to the Report, and Defendant Schafer's motion to dismiss are all now under consideration.
Michael Kelly is a homeless veteran seeking federally funded assistance in finding a residence. He has sought assistance through the federal funding program Supportive Services for Veteran Families. See 38 U.S.C. § 2044; 38 C.F.R. § 62.
SSVF is a federal initiative to provide funding to state and local agencies that seek to provide assistance to veterans and their families. The program provides for a number of different initiatives, including outreach services, case management services, assistance in obtaining public benefits, and even rental assistance. See 38 C.F.R. § 62.30-35. These initiatives are notadministered by the VA but instead by state and local agencies that are granted funding under SSVF.
MMCAA is a local agency that administers community services and is funded primarily by a federal Community Services Block Grant. See About Community Action, http://www.mmcaa.org/who_we_are/comaction.html. MMCAA also administers programs for the assistance of veterans under SSVF. See Supportive Services for Veteran Families, http://www.mmcaa.org/what_we_do/services/services_section/ssvf.html. According to MMCAA it provides the following services to veterans in the Mid-Michigan area:
Debra Schafer works as the assistant director of outreach services for MMCAA. See Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 7. According to Kelly, Schafer had the ability to terminate his participation in the SSVF program administered by MMCAA. Id. Kelly was participating in MMCAA's case management services with a focus on identifying suitable housing for Kelly. Id. at 12.
During the course of Kelly's case management services a dispute arose between Kelly and Schafer. Kelly had been approved for housing assistance through a temporary emergency assistance program of the MMCAA. See Compl. 4, ECF No. 1. But according to Kelly, Schafer insisted that Kelly take up residence at a location called Patriot Place, "some Vet's shelter/Housing complex up North." Am. Compl. 5, ECF No. 7 (sic to all). Kelly preferred not to move into Patriot Place but instead take up residence at Bradley House, in Bay City. Id. at 8.
Matters came to a head in early August when Kelly sought to have MMCAA pay for his lodging at a hotel for one month while he waited for a place to open up at Bradley House. See Compl. 6, ECF No. 1. He believed that MMCAA's refusal to pay for one month of hotel lodging was related to his status as a single male. Id. Kelly also took issue with what he perceived to be Schafer's lack of attention to other areas of his life. See Email from Kelly to Schafer, Am. Compl. 11, ECF No. 7 ("For the last time - I asked you 3wks ago to check on my CWT application" (sic throughout). On August 4, 2014, Schafer responded to Kelly's complaints against her by noting that her sole responsibility and his main goal for the SSVF program was find housing and an income to sustain his housing. Id. at 12. Kelly grew tired of the way Schafer was...
To continue reading
Request your trial